Sue Tierney - what's the latest?

[Matt Gilligan]

Except where the directors have been trading whilst insolvent - which a $500,000 debt indicates. No assets to meet the debt. Would you cheerfully agree to such a business owing you money?
.

The law is that if a company is trading while insolvent, then you have an obligation as a director to cease trading. If you fail to do this then you become personally liable.

This company could have been solvent until the award by the judge against it, - then it folded. Thus technically she was trading solvently, lost the claim and immediately liquidated and purchased the business off the liquidator. This is all legal and without commenting on the rights and wrongs, is how a limited liability company works when it fails.

I would imagine Sue as Director has signed solvency certificates up to the date the court made the award, and made sure the company closed when it became insolvent.

That is what you are supposed to do....and as I said if you buy the business off the liquidator at market value, - then its not a running foul of the Phoenix Company rules either.

[CJ]

From what I can tell, there was no business sold. The liqidators first report was issued on the day on the liquidation (from memory).

Agree it probably insolvent before the court case as she could have been supporting the secured debt her self.

Q - why wasn't she paying her contractors (plural it seems). This is the missing price of the puzzle. One that Peter seems to know (and is doing the right thing in not telling us).

Peter - who is the source for your sources. Do you know that to be true. This seems to be more damaging to her role on the MBA so I wouldn't be surprised if the were considering it.

[donna]

After losing a court battle over money owed to a former contractor of Tierney's prominent brokerage business, Mortgages By Design, Tierney liquidated her company and created a new one under the same name.


Liquidator Lloyd Hayward says the company's debts were "mostly to the principal [Tierney] - essentially capital". The liquidator's report says that it is unlikely any payments will be made to creditors, which means the court-ordered debt will probably remain unpaid.

So mostly the debts were loans from Sue to her business "essentially capital" and the $70K court judgement was enough to tip the business into insolvency?

Umm it doesn't seem right - is it?

Cheers,

Donna

[Propoholic]

Part extract from Herald on Sunday 24th Jan 2010: Andrea Milner
Property Investors Association to hold leadership meeting.

High profile broker Suzanne Tierneys position as president of the Auckland Property Investors Association and board member of the New Zealand Mortgage Brokers Assocaition are being reviewed.

Another former contractor of Mortgages by Design, Colleen Abbott, says she is also owed money by the business, which she says is unable to be recovered now. Abbott says she is owed around $40,000 by Mortgages by Design in commissions paid by Banks to the companies trust account, in turn to be paid to Abbott. She says Mortgages be Design retained her commissions when she left to join another firm, leaving her significantly out of pocket.

It is understood from a source at the Auckland Property Investors Association that the board is holding a meeting tomorrow to review Tierney's presidency, following complaints from members who have called for her resignation.

The New Zealand Mortgage Brokers Association board is also meeting to review Tierney's board membership, says chairman Darren Pratley. "We have a concern and are investigating what has happened but we cant make any comment until we have gone through the process"

[Xav]

If she wishes to be in the same business, she needs to make sure she does not run foul of the Phoenixing Company rules, which by the way state that if she buys the business off the liquidator in the course of liquidation

There is no mention in the liquidators report of her doing such a thing. It appears from her statements that she hadn't even been in touch with the liquidator.

If she bought back the business that would include its liabilites anyway wouldn't it? It seems unlikely from what I know that she has any intention of buying it back.

Frankly I struggle to see what facts (that Matt and Peter seemingly know) could vindicate this.

There is certainly an attitude in this thread that she was justified because the court probably got it wrong. That may well be her attitude too. While those who know the facts are entitled to their opinion of the outcome, not agreeing with the verdict and taking steps to circumvent it are very different things. Again I think the later shows a lack of integrity.

Suppose she had won the court case and the contractor did not agree with the verdict. If he had tried to ruin her business through other means you can be sure that she would feel he was acting unethically. What she has done is essentially the same thing but in reverse.

Does the APIA really want someone who gives the proverbial finger to the justice system as its president? That sends a very bad message in my mind.

[Perry]

Er, it's the legal system. We don't have
a justice system - never have.
.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Send in the clowns ...

Hi Barry,

I wonder where the completely mistaken idea that tomorrow's previously scheduled APIA board meeting is a “leadership meeting” called to “review the Presidency” could possibly have come from?

Which ‘Deep Throat’ type could have conceivably given this reporter such a bum steer -- such an incorrect piece of non-information to use as a headline?

Any thoughts about possible candidates, Barry? Who would even want to do such a thing?

Moderators, please note: I am being a very well behaved PropertyTalk member and completely refraining from making any comment about Ron Hoy Fong being quoted in the newspaper discussing ‘trust’ as an issue for members of the APIA board. Ha! Oops.

[Perry]

There has been a legal judgement against MBD. By using Phoenixing MBD is avoiding a judgement from the Courts. I do not think that this is an honourable way to conduct business.

As as been implied already, until we are apprised
of the full circumstances, after-the-judgement
views remain premature.

As an example, what would be said if later infor-
mation revealed that the matter turned on some
odd-ball procedural technicality like date of filing,
or a missing signature or some other equally as
immaterial aspect?
.

[Perry]

Ha! Oops.

Keep your hands behind your back
else they get smote, OK?
.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Yassah! Won't happen again, Sah! - P <grin>

(PS pretty insightful comment about 'procedural technicality', BTW.)

[Winston001]

As an example, what would be said if later infor-
mation revealed that the matter turned on some
odd-ball procedural technicality like date of filing,
or a missing signature or some other equally as
immaterial aspect?
.

Pretty unlikely on a $70,000 judgement. Civil litigation isn't that hard and judges generally take a robust approach - who owes what to whom. Plus another creditor has appeared for $40,000 all of which indicates a deliberate and cynical move to avoid responsibility.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Winston001: I think if you're going to publish comments such as that, the PropertyTalk rules require you to sign them with your real name. (Is this correct, Mods?)

This isn't a witch trial.

[Propoholic]

Send in the clowns ...

I wonder where the completely mistaken idea that tomorrow's previously scheduled APIA board meeting is a “leadership meeting” called to “review the Presidency” could possibly have come from?

Go on Peter, you tell us......you're communicating with the APIA president about this matter, perhaps it was you that had prior knowledge of the leadership meeting? If Sue Tierney disagrees with the accuracy of content in the Sunday Star Times (17/1/2010) or Herald on Sunday this morning then I am sure she will inform Gregg Ninness or Andrea Milner of her concerns.
My knowledge of the supposed 'leadership meeting' came from the Herald on Sunday article this morning.

Which ‘Deep Throat’ type could have conceivably given this reporter such a bum steer -- such an incorrect piece of non-information to use as a headline?

Peter, you may be able to advise us who this deep throat type is? The headline could also have been 'New Zealand Mortgage Brokers Association to review Sue Tierney's membership status'. Perhaps you would also deem this as another 'bum steer'?

Any thoughts about possible candidates, Barry? Who would even want to do such a thing?

Perhaps you Peter?

Peter, there are likely to be further media releases on this subject until a conclusion is reached. I understand you are concerned about Sue Tierneys predicament.

[Perry]

Civil litigation isn't that hard and judges
generally take a robust approach . . .

Been there, tried that. I put a piece of statute
in front of a judge who then chose to ignore
it and made a determination that was contrary
to it. A Judicial Review wasn't an option - I could
not afford it.

So, can't agree with the implication of 'robust.'
In my case the judge seemed more intent on
covering the butt of a colleague than dispensing
any justice.
.

[captaincrab]

Pretty unlikely on a $70,000 judgement. Civil litigation isn't that hard and judges generally take a robust approach - who owes what to whom.
.

Winston has a point. A High Court Judge who has heard all the evidence seldom gets it wrong. Especially over matters of debts outstanding for work done which tend to be black and white. These Judgements are also a matter of public record.